PLEKHANOV'S POSITION BEFORE THE CONGRESS AND AT THE CONGRESS OF THE LEAGUE
339

began with regret to think that he had partly acquired the habits of those people with whom he waged war in No. 50 of *Iskra*, in the article "A Minimum of Logic and a Maximum of Shamelessness." I found it unnecessary to purchase his silence. That is all I can report to you for now. This, I believe, is sufficient to very considerably supplement and correct what comrade Lenin has said.

One more thing. Comrade Lenin's conduct troubles you. In my opinion, you are being too harsh with him. I think that many peculiarities of his actions are explained quite simply by the fact that he is completely devoid of a sense of humor.

Devoted to you, G. Plekhanov.

P.S. You yourself know perfectly well that the co-optation I made did not contradict the Congress's decision, which by the statute it adopted gave the editorial board the right to replenish its composition at its own discretion.

G. P.

(Reprinted from the pamphlet by L. Martov "The Struggle Against 'Martial Law' in the RSDLP," Geneva, 1904, pp. 81–83.)

Appendix 2.

PLEKHANOV'S POSITION ON THE QUESTION OF PARTY SCHISM
BEFORE THE CONGRESS AND AT THE CONGRESS OF THE FOREIGN LEAGUE.

(Documentary references to his statements and speeches cited above by V. I. Lenin according to the protocols of the League Congress.)

P. 17 of the League Congress protocols — the end of the "Open Letter to Members of the Foreign League of the R.R.S.-D." on behalf of the Bolshevik section of League members (see *Lenin Collection* VII, document 48, final paragraph, p. 76), in response to the "Open Letter" of L. G. Deich — a letter not only signed by Plekhanov among other League Bolsheviks, but undoubtedly also drafted and edited with his direct participation:

In conclusion, we cannot but express our protest against those gross violations of party discipline by means of which an official of the League permits himself to hinder the organizational activity of a party institution and calls upon other comrades to commit similar violations of discipline and statute. Phrases like "in such work, invited by the C.C., I consider myself not entitled to participate," or: "comrades!... we must by no means allow him [the C.C.] to draft a new statute for the League," etc., are of such an agitational character that they can only arouse indignation in anyone who has even a slight understanding of what the concepts: party, organization, party discipline, mean. Such methods are all the more monstrous in that they are employed against a newly created party institution, thereby constituting an unmistakable attempt to undermine confidence in it among party comrades, and are put into circulation under the guise of a "League administrator" behind the C.C.'s back.

P. 96 — Plekhanov's speech at the 5th session of the League Congress, his response to Martov's first statement following Trotsky's report on the draft of the new League statute:

PLEKHANOV. We have assembled at this congress not in order to exchange such expressions as bureaucratism, pompadour centralism, etc. In the interest of the dignity of the congress, which may be violated, I appeal to the chairman with a proposal to express censure of the preceding speaker and to maintain greater order. The chairman is giving us too much autonomy in this area.

P. 97 — Plekhanov's speech at the same session in reply to the congress chairman (B. A. Koltsov), who declared that he "sees nothing in the speaker's words [Martov's] that violates the dignity of the congress":

PLEKHANOV. We differ too much with the chairman in defining what violates order and what, touching on personalities, is inadmissible in sessions. Not wishing to say anything offensive, I ask that we not transfer the debates to a personal level; I propose avoiding any hints at personalities. Here an entire direction is characterized as pompadourist. It is clear that comrade Lenin, occupying a certain public post, turns out in this case to be a pompadour. We have assembled here in order to seriously discuss the statute, not to intensify schism. If you follow my advice, you can avoid disorder.

P. 98 — Plekhanov's speech at the same congress session on the boundaries of autonomy of local organizations, on combining it with the centralism of the party as a whole, and on the necessity of the new League statute being ratified by the Central Committee:

PLEKHANOV. The debates that have begun must lead to important decisions. First of all, it is necessary to clarify the question of how we understand the autonomy of an organization, and who can determine the limits of this autonomy. Section 8 of the party statute says the following: "All organizations that form part of the Party shall autonomously manage all affairs that relate specifically and exclusively to that sphere of party activity for which they were created." Every committee that drafts a statute for itself must clarify how it understands this point. Perhaps I did not understand the rapporteur, but it seemed to me this way: if all organizations autonomously manage their affairs, then we are autonomous in drafting our statute. Such reasoning is incorrect. § 6 says that committees are created by higher instances; consequently, they cannot be autonomous in creating their organization, in drafting their statute. If that were the case, they would be autonomous in relation to the whole, to the Party. This is not the Bundist point of view, but directly anarchical. Indeed, anarchists reason thus: the rights of individuals are unlimited; they may come into conflict; each individual himself determines the limits of his rights. The limits of autonomy must be determined not by the group itself, but by that whole of which it is a part. A vivid example of violation of this principle is the "Bund." Consequently, the limits of autonomy are determined either by the congress or by that higher instance which the congress created. The power of the central institution must be based on moral and intellectual authority. With this, of course, I agree. Every representative of an organization must take care that the institution has moral authority. But from this it does not follow that if authority is needed, then power is not needed. If comrade Lenin, who is called the representative of pompadour centralism, looked at it this way, he would be nothing more than an anarchist. To counterpose the authority of power to the authority of ideas — this is an anarchical phrase, which has no place here. I am told that this section must be understood to mean that the C.C. organizes committees where there are none. Is that really the case? And how should one understand the section on unifying and directing their activity? What is this? Now that the reign of unity has begun (loud laughter)... You find this funny? We are not surprised by this laughter. We answer it with a contemptuous shrug. The C.C. has the right and the duty, if not to organize anew where something already exists, then to reorganize these institutions in such a way that their activity does not harm the activity of the whole.

P. 101 — Plekhanov's next speech at the same session in the debates on the question of ratification of the League statute by the Central Committee:

PLEKHANOV. Comrade Trotsky advises against abusing such words as anarchism, opportunism, etc. This advice may be good or bad, but following it, one would have to avoid such expressions as pompadour centralism, bureaucratism, etc. Rather these expressions are inappropriate than those which I have used. I do not understand why one should not use anarchism but can use bureaucratism and pompadourism. Which expressions are worse, sharper? In this case one involuntarily recalls that savage who, when asked whether it is good to eat someone's wife, answered — it is bad to eat my wife, but good to eat another's. This concerns the form of speech... Now I turn to content. To comrade Deich's question I will answer with a question. He asks — if the statute is not ratified, will the League be considered to exist? I ask him — can one or cannot one continue to exist if the statute does not receive ratification? (One can! Of course, one can!) On the basis of what statute? On the basis of that statute which the C.C. finds not corresponding to the Party's interests? If I acted this way, I would not be acting as a member of the Party.

P. 102 — Plekhanov's next speech at the same session in defense of the proposal by L. E. Galperin ("Konyagina") on the necessity of ratification of the League statute by the Central Committee:

PLEKHANOV. I do not doubt that comrade Deich knows how to read, although he has never abused this ability. But that he knows how to read in hearts — I did not know this. In any case, data obtained in such a manner cannot be verified, and I will not even discuss whether he is right or not. Jauressism and anarchism are inconvenient to use, but lèse-majesté and pompadourism are convenient. One is forced to say: why should we bother about the old woman, wouldn't it be better, my good woman, etc. It is undoubtedly true that comrade Konyagina's resolution presents great difficulties, and under other circumstances, I would be against it. But I would be against it only because it presents an axiom, and it is strange to put an axiom to a vote. But at present concepts have become so confused that many axioms are being questioned. Therefore I find that comrade Konyagina's resolution must be adopted. Comrade Martov's resolution, as far as I understood it, says thus: we must draft a statute and are ready to submit it for the C.C.'s consideration. If the meaning of this proposal is that we will draft a statute and adhere to it even if it is rejected, then I categorically oppose such a proposal; a whole lexicon of Shchedrin's words could not convince me otherwise. There is no other way but to vote for comrade Konyagina's proposal. But once we recognize an appeal, as comrade Martov says, then by that very fact we recognize that the statute must be ratified. Comrade Martov said that when I spoke of unity, he laughed bitterly, and pointed out that we have been sitting at two separate tables from the very beginning. Thus you are taking the point of view of purely mechanical unity, and one might even see a violation of unity in the fact that Party members have different noses. I find that there is no such disagreement in points of view as to violate unity, and that the reign of unity indeed exists, despite the disagreements that have emerged. Probably the bitter laughter was caused by recollections of yesterday's scenes, but these were incidents of a purely personal character, not political. Unity must exist. The Party must be one and indivisible, and if this thought, coming from my lips, surprises comrade Deich, then this testifies to the fact that he reads hearts poorly. I insist on the adoption of comrade Konyagina's resolution, so that it may once again confirm our unity. To express our unity, we must confirm that we, as a part, submit to the whole.

P. 104 — Plekhanov's final speech in the debates on the question of ratification of the League statute by the Central Committee, which was then decided by roll-call vote in favor of the Menshevik proposal by Martov (against ratification by the C.C.):

PLEKHANOV. I see an important misunderstanding, not a disagreement. In internal affairs we are autonomous, that is so. But in external affairs? Who determines the limits, the boundaries of autonomy for each organization? (The Congress, § 13!) Section 13 must be interpreted. To give the right to interpret the law — means to give the right to abolish it. Who will interpret this law? Regarding the determination of our external relations, we cannot be autonomous. This is the Bund's point of view, which failed miserably, and you are taking it up. That is why comrade Konyagina's resolution must be adopted. And comrade Martov's resolution, if it contains the meaning I ascribed to it, can also be adopted. To bow before the Party — is necessary.